Every figure this model derived for MNR, the value it took, and
the element in the company's own XBRL it was read from — so any of it can be checked
against the filing rather than taken on trust.
As at 2026-06-30.
The figures, and where each came from
This is the part no other screener shows. Each figure below names the XBRL element it
was read from, so it can be checked against the filing itself.
Figure
Value
XBRL tag
As at
capex
8,302,000
PaymentsToAcquireOtherPropertyPlantAndEquipment
2025-12-31
cash
41,187,000
CashAndCashEquivalentsAtCarryingValue
2026-06-30
current assets
316,660,000
AssetsCurrent
2026-06-30
current liabilities
361,730,000
LiabilitiesCurrent
2026-06-30
interest expense
91,117,000
InterestExpenseNonoperating
2026-06-30
ocf
558,263,000
NetCashProvidedByUsedInOperatingActivities
2026-06-30
revenue
1,351,985,000
Revenues
2026-06-30
sbc
12,137,000
ShareBasedCompensation
2026-06-30
The ratios
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
MNR on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
cash operating margin
41.82
current ratio
0.88
current ratio reported
0.88
dilution pct
34.66
ebit cagr
-24.59
ebit yoy
-38.42
fcf margin
40.68
growth cv
1.39
interest cover
2.14
net debt ebitda
2.04
operating margin
14.4
owner earnings margin
39.78
revenue growth
34.42
revenue growth per share
-0.18
rule of 40
48.83
sbc pct revenue
0.9
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about MNR's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
no market cap; set `market_cap` in overrides.yaml
invested capital is 0M (cash exceeds equity plus debt), so return on capital is unbounded rather than undefined; scored as maximal
no forward EPS estimate; growth rests on filings only. Analyst consensus is not published in XBRL, so it has to be fetched from a data provider or set by hand in overrides.yaml as `eps_growth_2y`
valuation DROPPED from the total: only 0 of 2 inputs could be computed (ev sales, ev owner earnings not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
durability DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (contracted coverage, gross margin stability not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (valuation, durability -- 35% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left